Tattoo shops' newest clientele... kids?

Why I Took My 7-Year-Old to a Tattoo Parlor was written by Bonnie Rochman and published in Time Magazine in February, 2012. 

Summary
An increasing number of parents have turned to tattoo parlours to have their children’s ears pierced.  It has been found that most shops are what the author refers to as “mom-approved” by a local parent mailing list, despite the tough looking artists and heavy metal music blaring in the background.  A nurse apparently even “voted in favour” of the tattoo shops as a reputable place to get your kid’s ears pierced (Rochman, 2012). 

The stigma associated with tattoo parlours is that they are grungy and full of foul-mouthed people, according to one of the piercers quoted in the article.  Most mothers would never allow their child to step foot in a place like that.  But on the contrary, tattoo parlours are huge supporters of cleanliness.  Reputable ones use disposable needles and sterilize all equipment between uses.  Some shops are even regulated by states in America.  Mall piercers and jewelry stores use piercing guns which have caused complications and can’t be completely sterilized.

The author, who took her 7-year-old to get her ears pierced, claimed the piercing room “looked like a doctor’s office” (Rochman, 2012).  After the procedure, she received a bag of non-iodized sea salt and detailed instructions on how to mix a saline solution to properly clean a piercing.  This is completely opposite of what is recommended by mall kiosks, who suggest pure alcohol that burns and doesn’t actually aid in the healing process.

Tattoo parlours use hypodermic needles, and core out the tiniest amount of skin to make room for the earring, a practically painless procedure.  In a mall, the piercer uses a gun that jams a stud through the earlobe; instead of removing the skin, it simply pushes it aside.  Tattoo artists are convinced of the superiority of piercing with needles over piercing guns, so convinced that they leave their business cards in schools and pediatricians’ offices.  But ultimately the attitude changes of tattoo shops start through word of mouth, and parent by parent.

Mall accessory store Claire's advertising free ear piercing with the purchase of earrings.
Retrieved from dontletlifepassyouby.blogspot.ca

Opinion

Ear piercing is an ever-growing fashion statement among kids these days.  My 8-year-old cousin just recently got hers pierced, and constantly wears her hair up in a ponytail so she can show off her little purple jewel studs.  Apparently it’s the cool thing to do at school. 

Even back when I was younger kids wanted them; it’s forever been a trend.   However, the way the procedure is being done (and who it’s being done by) definitely needs to change.  My first ever earlobe piercing was done at the mall by some undoubtedly inexperienced 20-something when I was 7 or 8, who spent 15 minutes just trying to figure out how to work piercing gun.  I was sitting in the chair shaking and on the verge of tears, which was directly in front of the store window.  Mall shoppers passed by and watched all this go down.  Thinking back, this is a huge red flag.  What are the job requirements to being a mall ear piercer?  Apparently there are none.  Clearly there’s absolutely little to no training involved... maybe there’s a manual they have to read?  I really don’t know, all I know is that girl who pierced my ears didn’t read it.

I made the stupid, stupid mistake of going back to get my cartilage pierced (with the piercing gun in the mall again, because I didn’t learn my lesson the first time around).  This time, the gun actually shocked and broke the nerves in my ear.  I lost all feeling in the top part of my ear and to this day still have very little.  Not to mention that my cartilage is now flabby, discoloured, and looks permanently mutilated. 

Still, I continued to have a desire for more piercings.  But I finally came to my senses and got them done at a tattoo shop, by a professional piercer using a packaged needle and fully sterilized equipment.  I know this because they showed me everything pre-packaged before they pierced me.  They also explained the procedure in so much detail it was almost annoying.  These piercers are trained to do this kind of stuff and do it so many times daily that they could probably pierce with their eyes closed (and would still probably do a better job than the mall).  If anything, they would take even more time and better care with kids because 1) they’re kids, and 2) the moms are there, probably scrutinizing everything.

I am in full support of taking a kid to a tattoo shop to have this simple ear piercing procedure done.  Looking past the guys covered head to foot in tattoos and piercings, the loud heavy metal music, and the fact that most tattoo shops are hole-in- the-walls…they are surprisingly (or not so surprisingly, if you’re like me and are quite familiar with them) the cleanest places.  They’re probably right up there next to hospitals in cleanliness.  Parents should look past the stigma attached to tattoo parlours and see that it’s a much safer place to have your kid’s ears pierced than by a most likely untrained “piercer” in the storefront of a mall. As the article says, “only cowboys use guns” (Rochman, 2012).

Citation

Rochman, B.  (2012, February 7).  Why I Took My 7-Year-Old to a Tattoo Parlor.  Time. Retrieved from http://healthland.time.com/2012/02/07/why-i-took-my-7-year-old-to-a-tattoo-parlor/

Questions

What are some ways tattoo shops can positively market ear piercing to parents?

Should using a piercing gun still be allowed?  What ways can we ensure that it’s properly sterilized?

Tattoo Removal: The next big business boom

Increasing popularity for tattoos means growing opportunity in removal was written by Megan Martin in July 2010 and published by Infomart (a division of Postmedia Network Inc) in CanWest News.

Summary
In the last decade, the tattoo industry has seen a spike in their business. Due to this steady increase, it seems to just “makes business sense” to offer tattoo removal services (Martin, 2010).  As the number of people getting tattoos increases, so does the number of people getting them removed.  Tattoo parlours have since caught on, and as such many of them now offer removal services right in their shops, a “unique revolving-door business model” so to speak (Martin, 2010).  Customers come in, pay to get inked, come back and pay (again, and again) to have it removed.  

As it usually takes several sessions to remove (10-12 depending on the tattoo), paying upwards of $200-400 dollars per treatment can get very expensive.  Tattoo removal doctors have gone from seeing one or two patients a week to seeing one to two A DAY, even in spite of these steep costs.  The removal process is extensive, using beams of light to explode the ink particles into the skin, which is then absorbed by the body.  Weeks of waiting is required between treatments to allow the skin to heal, and there are some medical risks involved including scarring or changes in skin pigmentation.

Tattoo parlours have taken advantage of the removal surge by having technicians come in with machines to do them in shop.  Many people aren’t putting as much thought into getting tattoos anymore; not only is it easier to get one but their social acceptance is growing.  Laser treatments are more mainstream now as well, for hair removal and other treatments, so there is less hesitancy about the prospect of having a tattoo removed at some point.

However, not everyone likes the idea of the shops offering removal services.  Doctors caution about having them removed in non-medical setting.  They state that it should be done under medical supervision because if there is a complication, tattoo shops aren’t necessarily equipped to deal with it; the laser is a serious machine and potentially dangerous.  Even so, there are no regulations requiring they be used in a medical setting, as long as the laser operators are trained to use the machine properly, their use in tattoo shops are perfectly acceptable.

Opinion
As I sit here writing this, flicking through channels trying to find something to watch on TV, I've stumbled on a marathon of “Tattoo Nightmares”… clearly the name of the show speaks for itself.  This is the perfect example of the current tattoo fad that is among our generation.  Whatever the reason may be, tattoos have become so common you don’t think twice about seeing someone with one…or two or twelve.  I don't come across many people nowadays without a tattoo…and if they don’t have one they have at least thought about getting one.  Me, personally, I feel like its almost an addiction.  You get one, say you’ll never get another and 6 months later there you are, spending an hour or so in the chair with a needle in your skin.

Removing tattoos in the same place you got them to begin with just sounds like a smart business move. As the article put it, “returning to the scene of the crime” (Martin, 2010).  But it makes me uncomfortable to think the technicians operating the machines don’t actually need to have any medical training whatsoever.  What if the machine were to malfunction mid-procedure, and someone got injured? What if someone had a reaction to the laser? The technician would not know what to do (at least not in the trained medical sense).  I’m not arguing the fact that tattoo parlours aren’t clean…because they are.  They are possibly as clean as hospitals, or even cleaner with the standard they have to uphold.  But with a procedure that extensive and dangerous, I would rather have it done by a medical professional.  But maybe I’m just paranoid.

In any case, tattoo parlours have quite the business regime going. It’s expensive to get a tattoo…but nearly twice as much if not more to have it removed.  Some tattoo artists don’t like seeing their hard work and time going to waste -- but hey, if they’re going to make double, triple the amount of money taking it off, who cares? Half the time it’s still visible anyways.  Business is business, no matter how personally it’s taken. Yes it’s artwork and every piece is meaningful, but they still need to feed their kids and put a roof over their heads.

Too scared to face the pain and expenses of tattoo removal laser surgery? No problem.  Kat Von D, television personality from LA Ink, has created her own cosmetics line… “Lock-it Tattoo Foundation” and “Tattoo Concealer”, specifically formulated to cover up tattoos (and under eyes, blemishes, and discolouration…but let’s be real. Its not really for those things). Another smart business move.  Remember the story I mentioned about the tattooed guy in Sephora applying coverup? Guess which product he used.  Not nearly as expensive, definitely not as painful, and is perfect to cover up those tattoos you still want, but “shouldn’t” show during job interviews or at work.  It’s a good alternative, even if you have to slave over applying 10 coats of it to your skin.

Although they’ve adopted this idea of a revolving-door business, I feel like most tattoo artists try their best to please the client, while still offering friendly advice when someone wants something they'll probably regret at some point. On the waiver you are required to sign prior to getting inked, you even have to check a box stating you are not under the influence of alcohol. So they do their part in making sure there is no regret (or as little as possible)… as well as avoiding any lawsuits of inebriated ink.

Citation
Martin, Megan. (2010, July 9). Increasing popularity of tattoos means growing opportunity in removal. CanWest News. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/607150379?accountid=3455

Questions
Do you think offering tattoo removal services right inside the tattoo shop is a good business opportunity for the artists?

Should tattoo removal be left to the medical professionals who can appropriately deal with any complications that may arise?

Freedom for Tattoos?

Tattoos and Piercings: Issues of Body Modification and the Workplace, was researched and written by Donna Peeples and Brian Elzweig in the winter of 2011, published by the Society for the Advancement of Management.

Summary

This article focuses largely on legal issues of tattoos as well as litigation involving employers to which the authors claim have been relatively successful.  They also present suggestions for employers to help them “navigate the tricky waters of this social trend” (Elzweig & Peeples, 2011).  The authors state that tattoos have become extremely ever-present over the years, so much so that tattoo and piercing shops are surfacing in shopping malls.  They cite a 2007 study, where 66% of the youngest cohort had a tattoo or were considering getting one.  They also note the attitudes toward tattoos among those who are not tattooed, finding that the non-tattooed feel those who have them are more rebellious and more likely to engage in deviant behaviour (drinking, drugs, etc).  Tattoos are seen as “mutable” (changeable) characteristics and as such are not entitled to receive any special legal protection - so basically if a company has a policy that bans or limits the appearance of tattoos, it will most likely be upheld by the court.  In addition, courts have consistently rejected public employees’ constitutional claims (mostly those arguing provisions of freedom of speech and expression), holding that tattoos are not protected speech nor are they a legitimate form of expression.  Some employees alleged they were fired because of a tattoo or body piercing, but unless they could make a prima facie case of religious discrimination (which is a constitutional right) they essentially had no case, and therefore no chance of making a justifiable claim.  The authors then provide numerous case examples of employee’s failed attempts in arguing tattoos being a crucial part of their religion or physical appearance and the success of the employers’ discriminatory policies involving tattoos.  In closing, they suggest employers change their policies and hiring practices, as the number of people with tattoos (people who are the future generations of potential employers) exponentially grow and society evolves.

Opinion

For the sake and purposes of my background in law, I am mostly interested in the legal aspects of tattoos in this article, and this is what I will be basing my opinion off of.

It was very unnerving to read that the courts continually uphold the employer policies of body modification, as I do feel that tattoos are an expression of oneself. The article states that discrimination in employment based on tattoos and piercings is not illegal unless we are a “member” of a protected class (for example, a religious group)… I say we because I have tattoos myself, and these tattoos have significant meaning to me.  I feel that my tattoos express who I am, and I definitely feel that I should not be denied a job or anything else because of a fundamental right I believe I (should) possess.  The authors in the article state tattoos are a “social trend”, they are seen by others to be rebellious, and have been found to be in direct correlation with extended jail time and recreational drug use, to name a few.  These can potentially be seen as negative factors that have stigmatized not just the tattoos, but the people who wear them and their potential not just as employees, but their potential in life.

'Daddy I love you' tattoo
Retrieved from reddit.com

I feel I have to tell this story because it fits perfectly here. A couple months ago I was in Sephora and saw one of the makeup artists applying foundation to a young man (which we all know is crazy…since when do guys even step foot in a makeup store?).  My curiosity killed me, so I went up to him and asked why he was using foundation.  He told me he had a tattoo on his face, which I couldn’t see as the foundation covered it quite successfully, and was due in court the following day to try and win full custody of his son.  I asked why he was spending so much time covering the tattoo up (by that point it was the 7th layer of foundation) and he replied “the court would never take me seriously as a father with ink on my face.” I found this to be extremely disappointing.  How are we to feel safe with the justice system (or any system for that matter) if we can’t even express ourselves in this way?  To an extent we must look professional and “the part” in important situations like this…I understand society’s standard, but this is someone’s son, or job, or life and the court will not protect our expression as a constitutional right.  If this is the way our society is going to react NOW towards body art, I wish it luck with the future generations who will be completely covered head to toe in drawings.

So I guess I do not really disagree with what the article says, I more so disagree with what the law says (or what it doesn't say) about tattoos and expression.

Citation

Elzweig, B., & Peeples, D. K. (2011). Tattoos and Piercings: Issues of Body Modification and the Workplace. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal. 76(1), 13-23.  Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/871452761/fulltextPDF/142F91A0DD276A22181/2?accountid=3455

Questions

Do you think tattoos should be considered under the fundamental law of freedom of speech and expression?

What factors (other than “they are alterable” mentioned in the article) could be used as an argument to say tattoos should not be considered?